Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Absolutely right. That's a property-rights issue, and employees are contractually obligated to obey their employers' policies (or get a different job).

That said, these policies are driven by liability concerns and do nothing to increase one's safety at work. Someone disturbed enough to commit murder will hardly be constrained by a paragraph in an employee handbook.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I would argue that differing levels of consequence to public safety make a difference. If the law enforcement community, for instance, has reason to believe that make CHL info public might increase the probability of breaking and entering of homes containing firearms, with the potential for increased related crime, that's a legitimate argument for keeping that info private. This kind of public safety concern doesn't enter into the question of property values online.

It's always a cost/benefit analysis, of course. I just don't see the analysis in this case coming down on the side of making this info public.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

LOL You're lecturing a published academic literary critic and writer.

I'd say you've found your medium! :)

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The phrase "ridiculous wannabe swagger" qualifies as name-calling.

That you used the phrase to characterize gun owners as a group, in an otherwise civil and polite discussion, indicates that you are bringing strong emotions and unfavorable stereotypes to that discussion. I will not call you "hysterical," but perhaps you can see a connection?

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Katja, you raise vitally important concerns, and I am utterly sympathetic to your concerns. However, I must argue that the oft-repeated claim that guns in the home are more likely to cause unwanted harm than to be used in self-defense has very dubious origins in the misinterpretation of a methodologically indefensible study. The prize-winning criminological work of Gary Kleck, a sociologist unconnected with any gun-rights groups, has cast an entirely different light on this question among professional academic sociologists.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I think Scott's tone speaks for itself. It's always interesting to note when a discussion devolves into name-calling.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

A lot of assumptions here. I wish there were a little icon for "this post useless without solid statistics." ;)

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

There seems to be a consensus among listeners. Who wants this information to be public, and why?

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context